Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-27/Discussion report
Focus on admin conduct and editor retention
Proposal to create admin conduct noticeboard
- A new proposal to trial pending changes on Wikipedia.
- RfC on the conflict of interest guideline, as requested by the Arbitration Committee.
- RFC on adding a more prominent link to Special:MyContributions for IP editors
- RfC on the proposed cessation of selective delete (other than history merge fixes) and resulting changes to deletion policies, including the removal of a Revision Deletion criterion
- RfC on how files from non-copyright states should be treated and used on Wikipedia
- RfC about allowing watchlisting of user contributions
A proposal was made on February 9 by Timeshifter to create a new noticeboard to report and sanction rude and abusive administrators. The noticeboard would differ from current noticeboards, such as the administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI), where administrators are alleged to defend each other when claims of misconduct arise. Prior discussions which identified abusive admins as a contributing factor in the declining number of active editors on Wikipedia were cited in support of the proposal.
The proposal began with much interaction between the proposer and another editor, after which other members of the community joined the discussion. At the time of writing there was no apparent consensus on setting up the proposed noticeboard. Supporters of the new noticeboard argued that ANI is ineffective and cannot deal with complaints about actions by admins, but their arguments were half-hearted, with doubts expressed as to whether the new noticeboard would ever be implemented. Those opposing the noticeboard argued that ANI, Wikiquette assistance, and the Arbitration Committee are sufficient to deal with admin-related complaints.
It is interesting to note that on February 7, a separate, unconnected discussion regarding deletions done by one administrator was opened by TonyTheTiger (as covered briefly in the last edition). The deletions of the administrator under scrutiny, Fastily, have been discussed at length by members of the community, although the result of said discussions has yet to be determined.
In brief
- A discussion on whether or not secondary schools meet notability guidelines was opened on February 2, and continued at some length. On February 24, a second straw poll for the discussion was begun.
- On February 19, a proposal was made to allow any logged-in editor to self-fulfill requests to delete their own content, specifically U1 and G7. This has been cited as a perennial proposal, involving as it does giving admin functions to editors within their own userspace. The proposal will likely be closed as unsuccessful.
- A large discussion was started on February 24 regarding the article deletion process. The discussion was begun by an editor discouraged by what they considered insensitive comments arising from that process, comments that discourage new contributors. It expanded to cover the issue of whether new articles by inexperienced editors should go into an "incubator" first, and whether Wikipedia's goal should be to encourage more new editors to contribute more articles, or should focus on improving the quality of existing articles and rely on more experienced editors to create new articles as needed.
Discuss this story